I know how frustrating it can be to post vids that few watch. But I'm not going to watch it because any theory of religion that fails to include
parapsychological findings is deeply flawed. Since you've identified trauma as the major component of your theory I doubt there is much room in your
theory for transpersonal psychology, analytical psychology or parapsychology.

if you look closely above the 4 Greek pillars of life, you will see the word God with his 12 super rockstar disciples flanking God 6 to either side.
You may notice the Greek/Christian Cross above the doors to either side also?

it doesn't say "Allah" or "no God" or "Science"

-the Pillars are of the Ionic Order, of the Classical Order.

-the trim around the entire room (small waves) is Ionic.

-the Fasces is Etruscan origin, Greek not Roman.

-Pythagoras was an Ionian, who left behind above all a way of life.

all of the Pillars everywhere in DC are of the Ionic order, the Greek influence predates the Roman...

images and words work better sometimes than videos on youtube, one should be able to express something if they believe it.

BlueMule
But I'm not going to watch it because any theory of religion that fails to include parapsychological findings is deeply flawed.

What you have done is discovered the threshold of your belief.
When threatened with information that could change the way you percieve reality, you have engaged in the most common reaction to the source of the
stress.
Avoidance.

BlueMule
But I'm not going to watch it because any theory of religion that fails to include parapsychological findings is deeply flawed.

What you have done is discovered the threshold of your belief.
When threatened with information that could change the way you percieve reality, you have engaged in the most common reaction to the source of the
stress.
Avoidance.

-Peace-

It's not avoidance. It's time-management. A two-hour vid? No way. I don't have time to waste on a theory of religion that can't or won't accommodate
the full range of human experience.

It's not theory and it's not religion.
It's applied psychology and medical trauma.
And it's not a fairy tale...it's substanciated fact...all sources are listed openly.
But you are free to mischaracterize this however you wish to justify your own actions.
The only question remains why try to engage in a discussion if you aren't even willing to hear what the other person is actually saying?
Isn't that just called dictating?

I can handle being right or wrong, actually, I prefer being wrong because it means I've learned something new. In the same way, I can handle other
people being right or wrong. What I don't care for is leaving a situation unresolved unless everybody understands it and agrees that it can't be
solved. That seems to be the case here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear wildtimes, bowing to your superior knowledge of the mental health sciences as understood today, I'd like to explain why I'm having difficulty
with the idea that religion is a mental disorder which is caused by trauma. I'd honestly like you to correct me where I go wrong.

Everybody has a trauma at some point in their lives, not everybody is religious. It seems therefore, that the most anyone can say is that trauma
increases susceptibility to religious beliefs. But as everybody has a trauma, everybody is susceptible to religious beliefs. This seems to me to be
identical to saying that everybody breathes, so everybody is susceptible to airborne viruses. But why say there is a cause and effect relationship
between trauma and religion? Is in't just as reasonable to say there is a relationship between life and religion, or mental activity and
religion?

The idea is presented in one of the many videos, that when religious people have their core beliefs threatened, parts of their brain shut down. These
parts are related to fight or fight reactions, problems with spatial navigation, long term memory and a bunch of other stuff. But it's not just
religious people. They mention politics, but there are other groups who go ballistic when their core beliefs are challenged (besides Atheists, as
this thread has demonstrated). Tell one member of an engaged couple that their intended is no good and see what happens. Criticize a youngster in
front of it's mother, instant death. Walk into a sports bar wearing the wrong jersey.

There is, however, no particular significance to this fact. Certainly it makes a real difference at that instant, but it can be controlled, indeed we
require it. "Sure, Suzy called you a bad name, but you mustn't hit." Believing that, when a core belief is challenged, thinking shuts down, is
also not evidenced in the real world. That would imply that no one can ever challenge their own beliefs. I assure you that is false and has occurred
over and over.

The other difficulty I have is the expansive definition used for "Abuse" and "Trauma." Telling a child that God exists and that He loves him, is
trauma only by the definition of a very warped dictionary indeed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eryiedes. For this particular explanation I will say that I have nothing against you, only the tools you are using. It may be that those are the
only tools you have, or you've never been taught the use of the proper tools. It's nothing against you.

You have said that nobody has refuted the OP's video. That's not true. Even I did, early in the thread and my refutation has not been attacked,
let alone disarmed. But you claim that no one has attacked your proof therefore you "win."

You claim to have given me two proofs for the non-existence of God. I have criticized them both and pointed out their flaws, but you still believe
you have proved it.

However, you make a claim against modern Christian belief, and when pressed to find any evidence, let alone proof, you are unable to do so. According
to you, you and a friend have spent a total of 10 man-hours poring through the Bible, trying to find some evidence. Failing that, you claim it is
unfair and childish to demand that you show evidence to support your claim, and you're going to stop looking.

I hope you can see why I think you're not using the right tools, evidence and reason, to prove your case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for the non-logical explanation.

I have no objection to ignorance. I, and everyone else, suffer from that malady to one degree or another. I'm also not particularly disturbed by
stupidity. I see it as a little like color blindness, some people have it some don't. It's not a source of guilt, or it shouldn't be.

What grinds my biscuits, or frosts my gears, is the person without honor, the knave, the villain, the cheat, the liar, the coward. That, far more
than any attacks on my religion or politics, shuts down my amygdala. Against this person I react emotionally. People can insult others with the
vilest names and accusations, under the impression that it's true, but when they learn that they have no reason to believe it's true, the honorable
man has only one choice. He must, to remain an honorable man, withdraw the insult and apologize.

That is my belief, and my explanation for my feelings of anger towards those who do not take the honorable path

You are free to call your theory of religion whatever you want to justify your own actions.

The only question remains why try to engage in a discussion if you aren't even willing to hear what the other person is actually saying?
Isn't that just called dictating?

I've heard enough to suspect that your vid is a waste of time. Maybe you could just give me a bullet point or two? I mean so far I've gathered that
you think religion is reducible to trauma. Yawn. What else you got?

Nowhere did you refute anything.
Nowhere did you cite erroneous surveys.
Nowhere did you correct established lines of psychiactric reasoning.
Nowhere did you discredit the research data.
Nowhere did you cite anything which contradicts the trauma medical model.
Not once anywhere...ever.
You like the others waltzed around the facts...nothing more.

Unlike Mark Antony, I come neither to bury the Socratic method nor to praise it. The version of the Socratic method that many law professors purport
to practice has its place in legal education, especially in large first-year classrooms where it can lead to more active student engagement than
alternatives like the lecture method.

Use the Socratic method when it meets a teaching goal and eschew it when it doesn't it.

The Socratic or case method can help students sharpen their analytical and critical reading skills and begin to understand the contingent nature of
much legal reasoning. But the limitations of the method as usually employed — its over-reliance on excerpts of appellate cases, the tendency of
many of its purveyors to give short shrift to issues of fairness and justice, its fostering of passivity on the part of those students not
involved in the dialogue, and its privileging of the professor as the sage on the stage — are serious impediments.

No, you're wrong...but you haven't seen it so you wouldn't know. Bomb in the Brain is the four part that I reference but everything I talk
about is encapsulated in Part IV. Parts I-III build the base upon which IV is built and there's a substancial amount of material to absorb. There is
no theology or religion in that.

You are free to call your theory of religion whatever you want to justify your own actions.

This is just negative emotional reinforcement.

I've heard enough to suspect that your vid is a waste of time. Maybe you could just give me a bullet point or two?

You can find them in the exact same post on page seven but my crib notes don't do the material justice.
Don't take my word for it.
Take Wildtime's word for it...even Flyer likes Wildtimes.
There's information there you should know before weighing in here.
As Wildtimes said, people who understand psychology sometimes take for granted that others do and use terms flippantly expecting others to just
know. She works directly in the field and knows what she's talking about on mental trauma issues and the psychology of abuse.

You are free to call your theory of religion whatever you want to justify your own actions.

This is just negative emotional reinforcement.

I've heard enough to suspect that your vid is a waste of time. Maybe you could just give me a bullet point or two?

You can find them in the exact same post on page seven but my crib notes don't do the material justice.
Don't take my word for it.
Take Wildtime's word for it...even Flyer likes Wildtimes.
There's information there you should know before weighing in here.
As Wildtimes said, people who understand psychology sometimes take for granted that others do and use terms flippantly expecting others to just
know. She works directly in the field and knows what she's talking about on mental trauma issues and the psychology of abuse.

-Peace-

There have been many people who have tried to reduce religion to something that is not-religion. Or at least religion as THEY understand it. The
trouble is, they don't have a very sophisticated understanding of religion.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.